... ... ...I am going to focus on the central deceit of Dr. Moffett's article. Dr. Moffett dismisses the notion of thermite as absurd and writes,

Before I get into details about why this work is so poorly done, and why the interpretations of the researchers are so suspect, it is important to state that the thermite argument was put forward by these same researchers years ago, and the idea was fully debunked years ago. See for example here: 911myths.com [PDF]

A central point of the paper referenced by Moffett is that the presence of ingredients of thermite (e.g., aluminum and iron oxide) is easily explained by, for example, the aluminum cladding on the Towers and the presence of rust (iron oxide). Dr. Moffett's article elaborates on this simple theme:

It is no small coincidence that the major components that the researchers detected in the red and gray chips include iron, aluminum, oxygen, silica, and carbon, since these relate to the primary building materials that the WTC was constructed from. The girders were steel, which rusts to iron oxide, the façade was aluminum, and the floors were concrete. The traces of calcium and sulfur could easily be from wallboard (calcium sulfate), as the authors themselves conclude....

X-ray dispersive spectroscopy can tell you what elements are in a sample, but not what molecules those elements are incorporated into. Any sample of dust from the WTC collapse would contain similar amounts of these elements because those are the primary elements that made up the steel superstructure, concrete flooring, aluminum facade and other building materials (not to mention the aluminum fuselage of the aircraft).

Thus, Dr. Moffett represents the nine authors of the paper as bumbling idiots who confuse the presence of elements of thermite in the debris with evidence for thermite itself. Yet, on p.13 the authors state:

The existence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide [in the red portion of the red-gray chips] leads to the obvious hypothesis that the material may contain thermite. However, before concluding that the red material found in the WTC dust is thermitic, further testing would be required. For example, how does the material behave when heated in a sensitive calorimeter? If the material does not react vigorously it may be argued that although ingredients of thermite are present, the material may not really be thermitic. ... ... ...

911 Mystery Solved
Explosives used to demolish three WTC buildings following 2 plane impacts are identified in rubble by scientific laboratory
The first author of this recent paper1, Niels H. Harrit, is an Associate Professor of the University of Copenhagen's Chemistry Department. An expert in nano-chemistry, he gave the below interview to Denmark's TV 2 News, one of the country's two most respected television channels, on April 6, 2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
Danish scientist, Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust (with English subtitles) - Enderlein79, April 10, 2009
Here is a transcript of the above interview (English translation):

Interviewer: International researchers have found traces of explosives among the World Trade Center rubble. A new scientific article concludes that impacts from the two hijacked aircraft did not cause the collapses in 2001.

We turn our attention to 9/11: the major attack in New York. Apparently the two airplane impacts did not cause the towers to collapse, according to a newly published scientific article. Researchers found nano-thermite explosive in the rubble, that cannot have come from the planes. They believe several tonnes of explosives were placed in the buildings in advance.

Niels Harrit you and eight other researchers conclude in this article, that it was nano-thermite that caused these buildings to collapse. What is nano-thermite?

Niels Harrit: We found nano-thermite in the rubble. We are not saying only nano-thermite was used. Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 °C. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. Nanotechnology makes things smaller. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.

Interviewer: I Googled nano-thermite, and not much has been written about it. Is it a widely known scientific substance? Or is it so new that other scientists are hardly aware of it?

Harrit: It is a collective name for substances with high levels of energy. If civilian researchers (like myself) are not familiar with it, it is probably because they do not do much work with explosives. As for military scientists, you would have to ask them. I do not know how familiar they are with nanotechnology.

Interviewer: So you found this substance in the WTC, why do you think it caused the collapses?

Harrit: Well, it's an explosive. Why else would it be there?

Interviewer: You believe the intense heat melted the building's steel support structure, and caused the building to collapse like a house of cards?

Harrit: I cannot say precisely, as this substance can serve both purposes. It can explode and break things apart, and it can melt things. Both effects were probably used, as I see it. Molten metal pours out of the South Tower several minutes before the collapse. This indicates the whole structure was being weakened in advance. Then the regular explosives come into play. The actual collapse sequence had to be perfectly timed, all the way down.

Interviewer: What quantities are we talking about?

Harrit: A lot. There were only two planes, but three skyscrapers collapsed. We know roughly how much dust was created. The pictures show huge quantities, everything but the steel was pulverized. And we know roughly how much unreacted thermite we have found. This is the "loaded gun": material that did not ignite for some reason. We are talking about tonnes. Over 10 tonnes, possibly 100 tonnes.
Interviewer: Ten tonnes, possibly 100 tonnes, in three buildings? And these substances are not normally found in such buildings?

Harrit: No. These materials are extremely advanced.

Interviewer: How do you place such material in a skyscraper, on all the floors?

Harrit: How you would get it in?

Interviewer: Yes.

Harrit: If I had to transport it in those quantities I would use pallets: get a truck and move it in on pallets.

Interviewer: Why hasn't this been discovered earlier?

Harrit: By whom?

Interviewer: The caretakers, for example. If you are moving 10 to 100 tonnes of nano-thermite around, and placing it on all the floors. I am just surprised no one noticed.

Harrit: As a journalist, you should address that question to the company responsible for security at the WTC.

Interviewer: So you are in no doubt the material was present?

Harrit: You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it: unreacted thermite.

Interviewer: What responses has your article received around the world? It is completely new knowledge for me.

Harrit: It was only published last Friday. So it is too early to say. But the article may not be as groundbreaking as you think. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world, have long known that the three buildings were demolished. This has been crystal clear. Our research is just the last nail in the coffin. This is not the "smoking gun"--it is the "loaded gun." Each day, thousands of people realize that the WTC was demolished. That is something unstoppable.

Interviewer: Why has no one discovered earlier that there was nano-thermite in the buildings? Almost ten years have passed.

Harrit: You mean in the dust?

Interviewer: Yes.

Harrit: It was by chance that someone looked at the dust with a microscope. They are tiny red chips. The biggest are 1 mm in size, and can be seen with the naked eye. But you need a microscope to see the vast majority. It was by chance that someone discovered them two years ago. It has taken 18 months to prepare the scientific article you refer to. It is a very comprehensive article based on thorough research.

Interviewer: You have been working on this for several years, because it didn't make sense to you.

Harrit: Yes, over two years actually. It all started when I saw the collapse of Building 7, the third skyscraper. It collapsed seven hours after the twin towers. And there were only two airplanes. When you see a 47-storey building, 186 m tall, collapse in 6.5 seconds, and you are a scientist, you think "What?!" I had to watch it again and again. I hit the button 10 times, and my jaw dropped lower and lower. Firstly, I had never heard of that building before. And there was no visible reason why it should collapse in that way, straight down, in 6.5 seconds. I have had no rest since that day.

Interviewer: Ever since 9/11 there has been speculation, and conspiracy theories. What do you say to viewers who hear about your research and say, "We've heard it all before, there are lots of conspiracy theories." What would you say to convince them that this is different?

Harrit: I think there is only one conspiracy theory worth mentioning, the one involving 19 hijackers. I think viewers should ask themselves what evidence they have seen to support the official conspiracy theory. If anyone has seen evidence, I would like to hear about it. No one has been formally charged. No one is "wanted." Our work should lead to demands for a proper criminal investigation of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Because it never happened. We are still waiting for it. We hope our results will be used as technical evidence when that day comes.

Interviewer: Niels Harrit, fascinating. Thanks for coming in.

Harrit: My pleasure.

__________________________

[url] http://www.bigeye.com/nanothermite.htm[/url]_________________JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12

Most of what the debunkers at JREF have come up with so far are insults to Dr. Jones, disparaging comments about Bentham, strawman arguments, and unsupported allegations that the red-gray chips are some kind of paint. This early comment by Dog Town is typical of the general mentality throughout the thread; “Old hat! Vanity published,paint chips,yadda,yadda,yadda! NEXT!” forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4583452&postcount=2

However, as much as Dog Town and others there may wish it, the questions raised by the experiments documented in the paper are not going to be dismissed so easily; these chips produce iron micro-spheres when heated to 700 C (and intense chemical reactions at 430 C)- like thermite, but unlike any known paint- iron melts at 1400 C. (pgs. 20-28) Dr. Jones and everyone else, including JREFers, are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts- as the saying goes. There may be problems with the new paper not uncovered by the peer review process, that will be discovered- and there may not. The research of the paper’s authors continues- future studies are discussed on pg. 28 of the paper. And, as Jones has noted, these important questions also remain: “What is high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic material in large quantities doing in the WTC dust? Who made tons of this stuff and why? Why have government investigators refused to look for explosive residues in the WTC aftermath?”

Jon Gold suggested truth activists get the paper to professors at colleges and universities- people without ties to the Truth Movement or the government- for review and feedback. Imho, this is a very good idea- in addition to possibly getting valuable input, it will help raise awareness of 9/11 Truth issues.

Farmer’s “conspiracy theories” aside, as Dr. Jones said, “IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are “vanity publications” (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) — then why don’t the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.” And “Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as “Oh, it’s just paint” or “the aluminum is bound up in kaolin.” We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers.”

Results: 2. Test Using Methyl Ethyl Ketone Solvent. “…XEDS spectra (subsequent plots) were acquired from specific regions of high Si, Al and Fe concentrations. Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon, located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migration and separation of the components. This is a significant result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not bound chemically.” (18)

much more of great note is to be found at the above link. Hopefully many here have acted upon Mr.Gold's suggestion?_________________"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

Interviewer: You believe the intense heat melted the building's steel support structure, and caused the building to collapse like a house of cards?

Harrit: I cannot say precisely, as this substance can serve both purposes. It can explode and break things apart, and it can melt things. Both effects were probably used, as I see it. Molten metal pours out of the South Tower several minutes before the collapse. This indicates the whole structure was being weakened in advance. Then the regular explosives come into play. The actual collapse sequence had to be perfectly timed, all the way down.

__________________________

Once again, these researchers make the mistake of assuming that the molten metal was steel melted by their beloved thermate/thermite/nanothis/nanothat. There is absolutely no evidence for that. On the contrary, we now know from an ex-employee of Fuji Bank,
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.htmlhttp://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html
which was located on the very floors 79-82 hit by Flight 175, that the 79th floor from which molten metal poured out housed stacks and stacks of lead batteries to provide electricity to its computers in the case of a power failure. That metal was simply tons of molten lead (MP = 327.46 degrees C) which originated in the lead batteries melted by the fires. There was never any need to consider use of thermite/thermate. Jones of course knows that there were tons of lead on the very floor from which molten metal leaked (he was told this by Christopher Bollyn, after the latter was contacted by the bank employee). But, of course, he had too much to lose by accepting that his interpretation that the molten metal was steel was very likely wrong in view of this new fact and so he ignores it to this day, bolstering his redundant hypothesis with distinctly ambiguous experimental evidence and ad hoc interpretations slanted to favour his discredited idea.

Your erroneous claim has been shot down multiple times.
Not by assertion, but by actual experiments.
You're very welcome to try and melt lead and give it the bright yellow glow observed during the actual physical phenomenon.

If one is to dive down the Smith & Bollyn (and his 'anonymous' source) rabbit holes, one might as well claim that the build up of UPS batteries over the years overloaded the buildings in their entirety, thereby causing the collapse by sheer weight alone (aided of course by Purdue University cartoons)... ;-)

Caveat lector!_________________"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

Your erroneous claim has been shot down multiple times.
Not by assertion, but by actual experiments.
You're very welcome to try and melt lead and give it the bright yellow glow observed during the actual physical phenomenon.

I've used UPS systems several times and I don't believe any of them even used Lead/Acid batteries. So the OCTopusses have to prove which materials were used in the UPS first, then try to get whatever metal is as the batteries to melt in the right colour and quantities observed in the towers.

Meanwhile the non-OCTopusses have a theory: thermite melting the metal; backed up by physical evidence (thermite in dust), video evidence (yellow molten metal flowing from tower), the explosive events themselves and the lingering hot spots and reports of molten steel. And probably more besides!

(Prudent Press Agency)--- On April 3, 2009 a scientific paper was published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, The Open Chemical Physics Journal. The paper is entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". This paper provides indisputable evidence that a highly engineered explosive called nano-thermite was found in the dust of all three buildings that came down on 9/11 2001 in New York city. This advanced explosive incorporating nanotechnology is only available to sophisticated military labs.

More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official collapse reports Gregg Roberts and Staff
The facts are in. The evidence is conclusive. These experts lay it all out.
For Some, the Doubts Began Early “Something is wrong with this picture,” thought Nathan Lomba, as he watched replays of the Twin Tower collapses on television on September 11, 2001. A licensed structural engineer trained in buildings’ responses to stress, Lomba saw more on the screen than you or I. He puzzled, “How did the structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage was clearly not symmetrical?”
Lomba was hardly alone in his discomfort. Most structural engineers were surprised when the towers fell.1 They mainly kept their misgivings to themselves, though, as Scientific American and the Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, BBC, the History Channel and government agencies such as FEMA and NIST offered varying and often imaginative theories to explain how fires brought the towers down. In 2006, San Francisco Bay Area architect Richard Gage, AIA, began raising
technical questions among his professional colleagues about the
destruction of the Twin Towers and 47-story WTC Building 7.
Those who take time to look at the facts overwhelm-ingly agree
that vital questions remain unanswered, Gage has found. Today more than 30 structural engineers, experts in what can and cannot bring down buildings, have joined almost 700 other Architects & Engineers
for 9/11 Truth in signing the petition demanding a new investigation.2
They cite a variety of concerns about the “collapses” and the inadequacies of official reports. Many, like Lomba, find the unnatural symmetry of all three collapses suspicious. The rapidity of collapse –
acknowledged by the government as essentially freefall acceleration – was troubling, too. Some note that the fires were weak; others ask how the tilting upper section of WTC 2 “straightened” itself. Everywhere
you look, pieces of the puzzle don’t fit what we’ve been told.
New evidence mounting over the years only validated initial discomfort: eyewitness testimony of explosions, unexplained molten iron in the debris pile, and chemical evidence of steel-cutting incendiaries – all omitted from government reports. Many engineers attack implausibilities in the Bažant pile driver model, the 2002 FEMA report and the 2005 NIST report, and also slipshod and dishonest methodology. Finally, the
collapse of WTC 7, not hit by any airplane, mystified others. The repeated postponement of the government’s report seemed to add fuel to the fire.

Artificial Symmetry

The symmetry of collapse struck Paul Mason, a structural engineer in Melbourne, Australia, and Dennis Kollar, P.E. (licensed Professional Engineer in Wisconsin). Kollar was troubled by the collapses’
“totality and uniformity” and the fact that the mass of debris
remained centered on the building core all the way down. The towers
should have fallen “with increasing eccentricity as the
collapse progressed,” writes Howard Pasternack, P.E. These systematic collapses required that many structural connections not only fail “nearly simultaneously,” but also “in sequential order,” wrote Frank Cullinan, P.E.,
who designs bridges in Northern California. That’s “impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and ... small, short-duration fires.”

I find some areas of agreement with Dr. Moffet; for instance, he says: "The only way to find out what really happened [on 9/11] is to have a large panel of independent researchers reopen the case, with access to the classified documents that would be needed to make a valid assessment of all the data."

However, the paper is devoted to attacking the Active Thermitic paper, in ways that are unjustified. For instance, Dr. Moffett says: "The subgroup of 911 Truthers who are advocating this particular [nanothermite] theory of the WTC collapse have declared victory over those advocating the controlled demolition theory, or the missiles disguised as planes theory, or the directed energy weapons theory, or even the secret nuclear reactors in the WTC basements theory, because they now have a “scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal” to buttress their claims." ... ... ...

(Divisive illogicality bolded)

If you feel inclined to discount these utterings, bear in mind that 'influential' sites like op-ednews, dailykos, slate, thinkprogress, truthout and 100's of similar blogs all seem to have identical policy when it comes to 9/11. And literally millions of Americans lap it up...

Curious, innit?_________________"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

But how did the beams reach 600 °C in the first place?
In the real world, this would have required very hot fires for a very long time.
In NIST's computer, of course, this was not a problem. As with the report for the towers, these cyber-space investigators only needed to fudge a few numbers, like the thermal conductivity of the materials involved.

Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means that any heat applied is easily wicked away. But if that value were set to zero, or near zero, any heat applied would allow the temperature to rise dramatically at the point of application.

NIST - NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20
"The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used."

No thermal conductivity = you hold a pin with your fingers and start heating its other end with a lighter...and you never feel the heat on your fingers.

If it feels like it violates physical laws and actual physical experience, it's because it does.

If one is to dive down the Smith & Bollyn (and his 'anonymous' source) rabbit holes, one might as well claim that the build up of UPS batteries over the years overloaded the buildings in their entirety, thereby causing the collapse by sheer weight alone (aided of course by Purdue University cartoons)...

Caveat lector!

That's using a thoroughly stupid argument to discredit a theory you cannot otherwise rebut. First of all, the source is no longer anonymous. His name is well known (except of course to uninformed people like yourself). His name is Stanley Praimnath,
http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Bollyn-Stanley-Praimnath.html
and Bollyn interviews him here:
http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/mp3/Bollyn-Stanley-Praimnath.mp3
The fact that molten lead just above its melting point is not yellow, unlike the metal that poured out of the South Tower, is totally irrelevant. Who said that the lead had to be near its melting point? All metals heated sufficiently above their melting points will eventually emit yellow light.

An article by an Italian debunker confirmed the lead origin of the molten metal coming from the 81st floor window.

Quote:
"Abstract: research into the causes of a conspicuous flow of glowing material from the corner of the 81st floor of the South Tower leads to the finding of evidence of a highly flammable UPS system at that location and suggests a possible triggering event for the flow and associated fire. Photographic evidence of floor failures is provided. Molten steel is ruled out as an ingredient of the flow."

"Given these facts, it is very likely that the flow was due to light-alloy aluminum but also to the lead of the batteries, combined with other materials originating from the contents of the 81st floor. This combination of materials, after the failure of the floor, poured onto the 80th floor and from there flowed out from the building face. In my opinion, the weight of the batteries and the weakening caused by the fire on the 80th floor (which compromised the structural capacity of the overlying floor trusses) had an important role in the failure of the 81st floor. "
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.htm l

Believers in thermite cannot explain why molten steel did not leak out of many other areas of the tower, presumably contaminated with this hypothetical substance. On the other hand, the fact that the leaking was confined to the very corner of the South Tower that housed Fujii Bank's batteries is now readily accountable.

It is hard to give up what you want to believe. So you ignore facts that fit a theory better and support a theory that was conceived on the basis of a a more elaborate interpretation that is unneeded. And some of you think that's called scientific thinking???

Therefore, we now have independent proof that Fuji Bank did, indeed, house a UPS comprising a huge number of lead batteries (see photos at the above link) on the very floor of the South Tower from which molten metal leaked out.

Therefore, it is FAR, FAR more likely that this metal was mostly lead, contaminated with burnt office material, and heated well above its melting point of 327.46 degrees Centigrade so that it looked yellow when it poured out of the wall.

Of course, you can continue to regard this as pure coincidence. But don't expect me to take your dogmatism seriously.

As for Henry62, I have asked him on three occasions now to publish his rebuttal of the Harrit/Jones nano-thermite paper in a peer-reviewed journal. So far he declines to do so. Doesn't this tell you something of significance, Micpsi?

Micpsi wrote:

Therefore, it is FAR, FAR more likely that this metal was mostly lead, contaminated with burnt office material, and heated well above its melting point of 327.46 degrees Centigrade so that it looked yellow when it poured out of the wall.

'Far far more likely' is not going to cut it. Please provide a link to a verified spectrographic analysis of the molten metal.

Perhaps we should move this to '9/11 controversies' as it has nothing to do with the peer reviewed science we have been offered?_________________"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

a) Colour of the molten material - colour is used to determine the chemical structure of materials and this colour does exactly match a thermite reaction but not molten lead
b) Volume: the amount of material pouring from the towers was considerable and in excess of what might be expected from even a large UPS installation.
c) No account of large lead residue at ground zero or within the ground zero dust (cf plenty of accounts of "molten steel", iron spheres in dust and nano-thermite identified in scientific paper).

... ... ...This paper deals with the incendiary events and the forensic evidence that remains to prove that
the official story is wrong. Specifically, this paper discusses the chemistry of iron-aluminum-rich
microspheres that are found in the dust from the rubble, the chemical content of these
microspheres and the physical chemistry of the iron-sulfur-oxygen system since sulfur is one of
the omnipresent elements in the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres and was also found in a
metallurgical study of structural iron from the WTC 72.
1
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm,
2
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm, by Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R.
Biederman, R. D. Sisson, Jr. of Worcester Polytechnic Institute
1
Dr. Steven Jones discovered the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres and has analyzed their
elemental composition using XEDS analysis.3 This discovery, of recent date, is a very important
addition to the body of evidence that disproves the official story. At the present time the
interpretation of these microspheres is still under discussion as is the composition of the
incendiary they imply.
This paper brings the subject of physical chemistry into the investigation and suggests some new
possibilities that should be considered to enhance the scientific basis of the claim that incendiary
devices were employed in the demolition of the WTC buildings.
Physical chemistry is a subject that bridges physics and chemistry. It involves the study of the
interactions between matter and energy. Whereas chemistry is concerned primarily with the
material changes that occur in reactions, and physics may be regarded as a study of energy and
its transformations, physical chemistry is concerned with both of these subjects. The influence
of physical factors such as temperature, pressure, concentration, electricity, and light, both on the
reacting substances and the reactions is studied in physical chemistry to better understand the
fundamental nature of chemical change. The thermodynamics of changes in matter is an area we
will discuss in this paper in connection with 9/11. We will also be interested in surface tension.
It is important that an alternate theory of the demise of the WTC towers be consistent with
physical chemistry principles, and it is to that end that this paper is dedicated.
... ... ...

It appears to be a thorough analysis, imo, but no doubt the 9/11 truth deniers will attempt to shoot the messenger yet again - the process of denial seems to be becoming obsessive, not to mention frantic..._________________"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

a) Colour of the molten material - colour is used to determine the chemical structure of materials and this colour does exactly match a thermite reaction but not molten lead

No, it does not. Any metal heated to a high enough temperature will become orange or yellow.

scienceplease 2 wrote:

b) Volume: the amount of material pouring from the towers was considerable and in excess of what might be expected from even a large UPS installation.

Oh, so you not only accurately estimated the volume but know how many tons of lead were on the floor used by Fuji Bank to house their UPS installation? Please don't use such phony arguments. They are so transparently self-serving and as weak as wet toilet tissue.

scienceplease 2 wrote:

c) No account of large lead residue at ground zero or within the ground zero dust (cf plenty of accounts of "molten steel", iron spheres in dust and nano-thermite identified in scientific paper).

What a silly argument! As if one would expect detectable, large lead residues to have accumulated on the ground at WTC from one corner of the South Tower amidst all the hundreds of tons of rubble! There are NO accounts of "molten steel" That's YOUR interpolation. There are only accounts of molten metal. The nano-thermite was NOT identified conclusively in this paper sent to a vanity publisher. The claim remains contentious.

b) Volume: the amount of material pouring from the towers was considerable and in excess of what might be expected from even a large UPS installation.

Oh, so you not only accurately estimated the volume but know how many tons of lead were on the floor used by Fuji Bank to house their UPS installation? Please don't use such phony arguments. They are so transparently self-serving and as weak as wet toilet tissue.

That's pretty insulting... I am suitably offended, well done. But that doesn't disguise the fact that I have been inside many Data Centres and seen the volume of the UPS systems - they are are large but not vast. The flow seen by TV cameras show a large and consistent flow, and I estimate that there is several orders of magnitude difference in volumes. If you have have any data to refute that then please describe.

Micpsi wrote:

scienceplease 2 wrote:

c) No account of large lead residue at ground zero or within the ground zero dust (cf plenty of accounts of "molten steel", iron spheres in dust and nano-thermite identified in scientific paper).

What a silly argument! As if one would expect detectable, large lead residues to have accumulated on the ground at WTC from one corner of the South Tower amidst all the hundreds of tons of rubble! There are NO accounts of "molten steel" That's YOUR interpolation. There are only accounts of molten metal.

Disagree. Many people report "molten steel" not just molten metal. If there was molten lead (or aluminium) then there would be surviving evidence for that. I believe none has been recorded and I have looked extensively.

The nano-thermite was NOT identified conclusively in this paper sent to a vanity publisher. The claim remains contentious.

It's in a peer reviewed journal. Where's your theory written up!? Where's your evidence of vast quantities of orange molten lead? You can't diss the science when you have not even a written up lead theory...

Micpsi wrote:

Your rebuttal of the lead explanation fails completely.

Well I'm sorry I haven't convinced you. But your lead account is not backed up by anything other than the installation of UPS nearby. To counter balance the lead argument is: sudden onset, symetric freefall collapse, dust clouds affecting three skyscrapers with chemical evidence in the dust. Your argument has so little supporting narrative and no physical evidence at all.

Last edited by scienceplease 2 on Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:42 am; edited 1 time in total

The nano-thermite was NOT identified conclusively in this paper sent to a vanity publisher.

This sort of ridiculous and wildly inaccurate slur would be more appropriate in the cloud-cuckoo land of JREF. Please move your disinformation to 9/11 Controversies - it does not belong here on a sticky.

Quote:

The claim remains contentious.

Oh? Who to? Henry62, who so far refuses to offer his 'claims' for peer review?

Until you can offer a peer reviewed rebuttal, your comments here are nothing but very smelly wind. The science remains unchallenged to all but those who wish to maintain the global crime syndicate's domination and destruction of rational discourse._________________"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

Thanks Thermate, for saying so eloquently, what I expect others like me have been thinking!_________________In the end, it's not the words of your enemies you will remember, but the silence of your friends. Martin Luther King

Regarding the dialog between David Chandler and Frank Greening on applying Newton’s Third Law of Motion to the “pile driver” theory of WTC1’s collapse, kudos to Chandler for his clear analysis. Greening’s arguments, for the most part, miss the point. Chandler’s rebuttal of Greening stands on its own, but the arguments are worth repeating both to affirm Chandler and to help create a scientific consensus on his analysis.

From an old copy of a widely used textbook, the 929 page University Physics by Sears, Zemansky, and Young (sixth edition), on page 4 we read “An equation must always be dimensionally consistent; this means that two terms may be added or equated only if they have the same units.” Greening’s equations that add or subtract M (units = mass) and dM/dt (time rate of change of mass, units = mass/time) are in basic error. Perhaps Greening can restate his equations correctly for all those interested.

Further, on page 24 of the above text, in the section titled “Idealized models” we find these words: “the analysis is hopelessly complicated if we try to include all these effects; we need to make a simplified model” and “an approximate description is a lot better than no description at all, which may be the alternative if the problem is so complex as to defy analysis.” So, far from being naïve, Chandler’s analysis of Bazant and Greening’s “pile driver” theory is in the best tradition of physical science. Rather than conceding any truth to this theory, Chandler uses the ancient and powerful method of reductio ad absurdum in which one starts with an assumption and then shows that the inferred results are absurd, thus invalidating the original premise.

To Chandler’s forthright responses to Greening’s arguments, one might add that the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses have nothing in common with a rock slide, as Greening suggests, unless of course the rocks are connected by steel girders. Greening does not really begin, as he implies, to “quantify the complexities of the WTC1 collapse.” Instead, he presents a hodgepodge of statements that miss the point of Chandler’s simple argument and may befuddle the average, non-scientific reader.

Some may wonder how Greening’s E1 (energy) is related to Chandler’s F (force). Greening rephrases Chandler’s equation in terms of the energy, E1, needed to collapse one floor. His train of thought appears to be as follows: Using the equation W (work) = F (force) x Distance (d), the work or energy needed to collapse one floor is W = E1 = 3.7F where F is the downward force exerted by the upper block on the lower and 3.7 meters is the height of one story. From Chandler we have Mg - F = Ma, where F is the equal and opposite upward force of resistance. So, Mg - E1/3.7 = Ma. Dividing each side of this equation by M, we arrive at g - E1/3.7M = a, which is what Greening puts forward as a new insight. However, as Chandler notes, this is not a new insight. Greening is implicitly acknowledging Newton’s third law of motion and supporting Chandler at the same time.

The collapse time (11 - 12 seconds) for WTC1 indicates an average acceleration of 0.64g for the entire collapse. Even if the falling block accretes all the mass (without shedding), the resistive force at each stage will still be only 0.36Mg, where M is the mass above the crush front. As Chandler has pointed out, this resistive force is much less than the upward normal force of Mg when the building was standing intact. The observed collapse, if solely due to gravity, is therefore absurd. No matter how much damage occurred at the floors where the plane hit and the fires burned, the “pile driver” theory does not explain the progressive accelerated collapse through the undamaged floors of the building. This conclusion, by itself, indicates that explosives were used to take out the columns. Taken with all the other evidence, the case for controlled demolition is overwhelming.

Greening’s arguments do nothing to invalidate Chandler’s reasoning and conclusion. If mass is shed, or if some energy is converted into other forms, this results in a less effective “pile driver.” The only fault I can find with Chandler’s responses is that, in his first response, he omits mass (M) from the forces he specifies as 0.64g and 0.36g. But these omissions appear to be scientific typos.

Chandler’s straightforward analysis avoids the complexity that often obscures a simple solution to a problem. This application of the laws of physics would make an excellent problem for physics students. Also, let’s hope other scientists will weigh in on Chandler’s analysis. Unless someone produces a major flaw in the argument, Chandler may well have unearthed the Rosetta Stone for disproving the official story of the towers’ collapses.

I wholeheartedly applaud the analyses by David Chandler and John Wyndham. Note that other physicists are likewise joining the fray such as Dr. Gregory Jenkins, Prof. Terry Morrone, Dr. Crockett Grabbe and Prof. David Griscom (a fellow of the American Physical Society). These four also have papers published in the Journalof911Studies.com (as does David Chandler), still an excellent resource IMO.

The level of activity by physicists and architects and engineers is becoming impressive, and the analyses indeed compelling regarding the falsity of the "official story" of 9/11, from a scientific point-of-view.
Submitted by ProfJones on Mon, 06/29/2009

Also on 911blogger today - a fascinating revelation of possible US Naval sources (ONI?) for the nano-thermite. http://911blogger.com/node/20522_________________"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

Frank, what do you mean by 'theory' when the Harrit/Jones paper demonstrably deals specifically with practical experiment and observation? It offers no theories, just fact - however unpalatable one might find it. That's the trouble with peer-reviewed science when dealing with tangible evidence with impeccable provenance.

Very hard to ignore, isn't it?_________________"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum